St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Franklin

• Decision Date: 02 February 1898
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: ST. LOUIS S. W. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. FRANKLIN.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

44 S.W. 701

ST. LOUIS S. W. RY. CO. OF TEXAS v. FRANKLIN.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

February 2, 1898.

Appeal from Navarro county court; J. F. Stout, Judge.

Action by W. S. Franklin against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company of Texas. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Sam H. West, Clark & Bolinger, and James D. Williamson, for appellant. Simkins & Mays, for appellee.

JAMES, C. J.

An action for damages for false imprisonment, brought by appellee against appellant and the town marshal of Blooming Grove, wherein it was alleged that plaintiff, on a certain day, entered the waiting room of appellant in said town, and purchased and received a ticket of the agent from that point to Corsicana, paying valid silver coin for same to said agent, and that thereafter said agent sent for and caused said marshal to arrest plaintiff on the false charge of passing counterfeit money, and that said agent, acting and conspiring with said marshal, falsely arrested and imprisoned appellee in the calaboose of said town for six hours, under disagreeable and humiliating circumstances, and praying for damages in the sum of $1,000. The defenses, briefly stated, were that the agent acted outside the scope of his authority or service, and his acts, if any, as alleged, were his personal acts, never ratified by defendant; that plaintiff had not bought, but only proposed to buy, a ticket; the coin he offered had every appearance of being counterfeit, and it was therefore refused by the agent, and plaintiff and the companion that was with him stated to the agent, in substance, that they had told the person who paid them the money that they believed the money was not good; whereupon the agent, on his own personal account, notified the marshal, in effect, that plaintiff and his companion were at the depot, offering to pass what they believed was counterfeit money, and thereupon the marshal came and arrested them, etc.; wherefore defendant is not liable, but, if there is any cause of action, it is against the said agent or said marshal. There was a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $500.

The first assignment complains of the following definition, given by the charge, of a "passenger": "If you believe from the evidence that defendant * * * was * * * a common carrier of passengers upon its trains, and that before said arrest plaintiff had purchased a ticket from said company's agent, and paid him therefor, intending thereafter, as soon as possible, to take passage on said company's train, or that before said arrest plaintiff had gone to said company's waiting room at the depot with the intention in good faith to procure a ticket and take passage on defendant's train at the first opportunity, and for this purpose...